Yikes, Muclair is going to want to run away as far as possible from this.
https://leapmanifesto.org/en/the-leap-manifesto/
https://leapmanifesto.org/en/the-leap-manifesto/
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canadian General Election (OT) - #elxn42: October 19, 2015
- Thread starter matthewwhatever
- Start date
- Status
BigJonsson
Member
The Toronto Star
2 mins ·
‪#‎BREAKING‬: Ottawa loses attempt to ban niqabs at citizenship ceremonies.
A Federal Court of Appeal panel ruled from the bench, saying they wanted to proceed quickly so that Zunera Ishaq can obtain her citizenship in time to vote in the Oct. 19 federal election.
2 mins ·
‪#‎BREAKING‬: Ottawa loses attempt to ban niqabs at citizenship ceremonies.
A Federal Court of Appeal panel ruled from the bench, saying they wanted to proceed quickly so that Zunera Ishaq can obtain her citizenship in time to vote in the Oct. 19 federal election.
Earthstrike
Member
Look, I'm about as liberal as the next guy, but I don't really have a problem with military cuts. We rely on america? We also serve their interests. Properly defend our shores? Against what enemy combatant which requires modernization? Heavy military spending is an anachronism in times of nuclear weapons and ekeing out an advantage by reducing military spending is something we should be doing.
But if we're doing that we should be doing it openly and honestly and start decommissioning vessels instead of sending people out on obsolete creaky hulks. Not the horrible way Harper has been doing it.
OK, so you want us to rely on the US to maintain our Artic sovereignty against Russian interests? Super. You want us to completely renege on our commitments as NATO members while enjoying the full privilege of protection that all members are committed to upholding? Great. Clearly then, out of all your issues with Harper, our declining reputation abroad is not one of them.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
i wonder who she's going to vote for
Buba Big Guns
Banned
The thought of another CPC government is extremely depressing. I really hope Trudeau isn't a dick and considers a coalition in case of a Conservative minority.
Our increased commitment to NATO and its 'peacebuilder' campaigns has gone hand in hand with our decreased participation in the UN and traditional peacekeeping operations
While it is true that the Liberal party did vote in favour of the NDP motion of Sept. 16, 2014 about reinstating a federal $15 minimum wage during one of Parliament's "Opposition Days", the vote was well regarded as being meaningless given the Harper majority. However, the Liberals are campaigning against the disingenuous claim being made by Mulclair that part of his plan for the middle class includes a $15 minimum wage. Minimum wages are set by each province, and the federal minimum wage being proposed impacts about 1 million federal employees... but, the most recent data available from 2008, indicates that only 416 federal workers would actually benefit.
I can't find any evidence that Trudeau was ever against C-51, and he seems to have maintained all along that he would make specific changes to the legislation that are unacceptable. He first explained his stance in a speech he gave to students at UBC.
I would say Trudeau is currently campaigning in favour of the deficit spending included in their platform given the current recession the country finds itself, as it makes sense given the circumstances, and nobody expected there to be two recessions during Harper's tenure... but here we are. Not something I would call being all over the map.
And as for Liberal promises in the 90's... well we need to remember the state of finances, debt and deficit after the Mulroney years, and the subsequent downgrade of Canada's credit rating, and high interest rates... etc... etc... political song and dance, not sure if any of that really applies to the Liberal party of today... so, yeah.
Earthstrike
Member
Protecting our arctic sovereignty against russia is also something the U.S. has a vested interest in, so them pitching in to help is no real issue, the same way Canada at one point in the Afghan war represented about 50% of ground forces there. The U.S.A.'s and Canada's strategic interests are by and large the same when it comes to territorial issues against russia. As for nato obligations, a lot of countries are renegging, for the reasons stated earlier. The 2% of GDP target by the way, isn't necessarily something that should be followed to the T. For one thing, it's just an arbitrary number people pulled up. I'm sure there is some theoretical basis for it, but different nations having different circumstances means that 2% numbers might not be entirely applicable to each nation.
Here's a nice little article talking about just this issue:
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/defense-industrialist/is-nato-s-2-of-gdp-a-relevant-target
matthewwhatever
Member
While also running away from this: Mulcair under fire for calling Toronto 'Canada's most important city'.
Though I love the audio of it, where he jumps into it headfirst, as if he's intentionally trolling Vancouver reporters.
Would it be that expensive? There'd be a little more spending on summer/short-term hires as they gather and enter the data, but in terms of investing in broken programs, it feels like that would be one of the easier fixes.
First, "increased commitment to NATO"? That's demonstrably untrue:
Secondly, military spending doesn't just equate with defending our shores or fighting enemy combatants. Just read this story from Macleans on military procurement, or Open Canada's report on Canada's abysmal levels of engagement with the rest of the world. Spending less on the military doesn't just mean we're putting less money into bombs, it means we can't evacuate Canadians out of trouble spots in the world (indeed, earlier this year we had to rely on Russia to get Canadians out of Yemen). It means we can't monitor environmental threats, which is a big deal if you want to avoid Vancouver harbour turning into a oil-slicked wasteland. It means we can't mount search & rescue operations in the Arctic -- which, again, is kind of a big deal for a country like ours. If you want to say we shouldn't be spending like we're in the middle of war, sure, I'm on board with that, but there are things we should be doing as a sovereign nation that we just aren't.
BigJonsson
Member
You also can't run multiple elections on strengthening the military and having almost nothing to show for it, I'm surprised it hasn't become a bigger campaign issue
The F35 debate was LAST election =/
The F35 debate was LAST election =/
Yes, the US has interest in the Artic. Theirs. If we become entirely dependent on them to protect our borders, what leverage do we have when we want to stake a claim for our interests?
As for our commitments to NATO, we signed an agreement to join and all signatories agreed to meet certain targets to ensure all were committed to pitch in their fair share, because that is what NATO is: a mutual protection pact among allied countries. We currently rank 3rd last in meeting our targets. Only Hungary and Spain are worst than us in this regard. I would think that a country like Canada can keep better company than that.
I'm super surprised that the F35 hasn't been brought up again by the Liberals or NDP.
Is there anything on this that's all that controversial? Their time frame for switching to 100% renewable resources is probably too crazy ambitious, but the call to start the shift now is on point. The part about local agriculture is kind of typical hippie stuff that I don't really take that seriously, but the rest seems reasonable to me, at least for a manifesto, which is supposed to be a bold, "call to action" style document.
The formatting of that linked page is kind of insane, but here's a copy and paste from another site that appears to be largely the same in nailing the main points.
BigJonsson
Member
Maybe they are waiting for the Munk debate when Harper will probably brag about how he has helped the military =/
The manifesto was written up by Naomi Klein and friends. She's essentially advocating for the overhaul of the capitalist system in Canada. The problem here (speaking purely from a political perspective) is that Muclair is running to the center in an effort to demonstrate that the NDP is capable of running the economy just as well as any other party has done. That is *our* economy, the only one we already have. Now Muclair has not and most likely does not endorse this manifesto, but the efforts to attach him to it have begun and the hastag #TommunistManifesto has started popping up. If this becomes synonymous with his platform, he's going to alienate some crucial voters who just don't lean left enough to buy into what this manifesto is proposing. (and quite frankly, no one sensibly should. This thing one of Naomi Klein's childish ramblings.)
There's nothing in that manifesto that's incompatible with capitalism. The words "capitalist" and "capitalism" are not even found in the document.
This manifesto mostly reminds me of how much the environment issue has been set aside this campaign by both the NDP and the Liberals. Likely this is due to Dion's disastrous campaign on his Green Shift platform. No one wants to bring up carbon pricing, because they're scared taxpayers will badly react to it.
It's sad to me that carbon taxes have been framed so negatively, when BC carbon tax implementation has been a huge success story and it is well regarded internationally. It was implemented by a conservative party too lol.
The manifesto is an extension of what she was advocating in her book Capitalism vs Climate in which she argues that the former is incompatible with the latter.
In any case, this is the kind of thing that Muclair is trying to shed from the perception of the NDP. I honestly don't know how it will come to affect him in the campaign, but I definitely know that this is something he'd likely want to distance himself from rather than embrace.
matthewwhatever
Member
On the one hand, I don't inherently disagree with a lot of what they're saying, even if I think that they're being a little over-the-top in how they're saying it.
On the other hand, something like this is kind of hilarious:
...particularly when you consider how much of that rabble.ca crowd that would probably support the Leap people are grumbling about how right-wing Mulcair is.
In more substantive news, since I know a couple of people have posted here wondering if any of the parties have said anything about telecoms/internet, Open Media is reporting that Elizabeth May is the first party leader to endorse their platform (which includes better choice for providers, among other things).
On the other hand, something like this is kind of hilarious:
...particularly when you consider how much of that rabble.ca crowd that would probably support the Leap people are grumbling about how right-wing Mulcair is.
In more substantive news, since I know a couple of people have posted here wondering if any of the parties have said anything about telecoms/internet, Open Media is reporting that Elizabeth May is the first party leader to endorse their platform (which includes better choice for providers, among other things).
I apologize for my poor wording. By increased commitment, I was speaking not of fund allocation towards NATO, but of Canada's increased participation in NATO led peacebuilder/stability campaigns that stray from middle-power politics and traditional peacekeeping operations. While the trend began in the 90's, Canada foreign policy has become increasingly defined by narrow economic and security interests, resulting in, as you said, our decreased involvement in a number of important international initiatives.
I think the point I was trying to make in my first post was that not meeting NATO spending commitments is the least of our worries when it comes to our damaged international reputation
I wouldn't say that it is the least, but it's not the sole and primary reason for it.
My point in bringing it up was to push back against this misconception that the CPC are just the equivalent of the GOP in the US, specifically in the respect that they throw money towards defence spending at the expense of other, perhaps more vital, spending programs.
Not only is it not true, it is simply atrocious what a shambling state they've put the military in. And I didn't even mention the treatment of our veterans.
oh for sure. The treatment vets have endured under goons like Fantino is a travesty
Just saw on globeandmail that Trudeau plans on modifying the current tax rate for small business, which will pretty much exclude anyone using this as a tax deferral. It may not affect the majority of the population, but as a physician about to start his practice, this kind of hurts as the difference is rather large. Still not decided on who to vote for (unlikely to be CPC), and I know that I should vote for whoever will strengthen the middle class and make this country a better place, but it's easier said than done when you are at the "wrong" end of policies. Oh well...
Get your VCRs programmed and ready.
The only reason we're even talking about the possibility of Mulcair as PM is due to Layton's impressive visit to this show in 2011, after which was the remarkable Orange wave through Quebec. I'm sure it will be pretty tough for Mulcair to do better than Layton.
Unfortunately I barely know french but maybe a captioned youtube version will appear later if I'm lucky.
The only reason we're even talking about the possibility of Mulcair as PM is due to Layton's impressive visit to this show in 2011, after which was the remarkable Orange wave through Quebec. I'm sure it will be pretty tough for Mulcair to do better than Layton.
Unfortunately I barely know french but maybe a captioned youtube version will appear later if I'm lucky.
Liberty4all
Banned
Was our for dinner with my millennial brother (age 33). He's voting PC because of the money given for families per kid. I didn't understand it exactly but he said he gets a cheque for 800/mth because of his kids ...
They are solidly middle class ... Oshawa home owners making prob 80k - 100 k annually. I can see how those kind of credits would be super appealing ....
Edit: Also TSFAs are massive wealth generators. Even if you can't max it year to year, there may be a time (like when selling a house) that you can sock in the room you have (as room in a TSFA grows cumulatively year to year). I def like the 10k max per year ... It is not impossible for a middle class family to do.
It's called bribery. The tax credits shouldn't go to people who can afford children. It should be a childcare subsidy for the poor. Instant workforce generation.
As for the tfsa, a family of four making 80k a year which is 55k after taxes isn't going to be able to sock away 10k a year. Possibly if they don't use their rrsp room, but that shows how it really only benefits those either making say 150k/year+ or those without kids.
All politicians do it, but most of his policies have been aimed toward cutting taxes for the upper middle class and the rich. Not necessarily wrong, but I question his priorities.
Liberty4all
Banned
I don't have kids myself but rewarding those that do isn't necessarily a bad thing imho. I was shocked at how much my bro was getting for his 3 kids. Especially when they are only making 55k/yr after tax. I can say with certainty that many PC votes are coming from the 55 - 100k after tax folks with families living in the suburbs.
I agree that year to year one might not be able to max TSFA contributions but the room grows every year. One big windfall (inheritance, house sale, etc) and you can easily catch up. Best of all the money is protected from any other tax grabs.
Not sure who I an going to vote for. Likely NDP as I'm in social services and big government benefits me and I have no kids so I can't take advantage of all the kid credits. The TSFA thing though has me on the fence ... Its a major issue for me personally one that could sway me PC.
Your brother either hasn't looked in any detail at all at the Liberal or NDP plans or he is terrible at math.
Obviously I can't say for certain without knowledge of his income and how many kids he has, but from a high level view everything I've read is that the Liberal family benefit is dramatically better than the Conservative plan. I'm a bit skeptical of your brothers' claims.
The Liberal Party put up a calculator here.
If you don't have a partner that is able to take care of your kids full time and you use childcare then the NDP plan is even better. $300 a month for childcare under the NDP plan, which is dramatically lower than what Canadians pay for childcare (which is absurd like $1200+).
The child benefit being given without any consideration for family income is such blatant vote bribery it should be illegal.
TFSA increase was also a bad idea. Increasingly starving the government of tax revenue for something that primarily people who don't need it benefit most from.
TFSA increase was also a bad idea. Increasingly starving the government of tax revenue for something that primarily people who don't need it benefit most from.
Listening to Guy A Lepage is a challenge itself but at least the attacks between all three should be interesting. Wonder if Justin will make a gaffe again on the show.
If someone has a good reason to take money from people who don't have kids and people who generate a high income, and give it to people who have kids then I don't have a problem with it, but it had better be a good reason. I dislike having money taken from me to support someone else's kids, especially when they often don't need it. I'm comfortable with some of my money being taken to help those in desperate need or to pay for essential public services, and I don't think I'm alone in that.
Unfortunately now that this is in place it can't get taken away. People with kids are used to getting paid and will vote out whoever turns off the tap. It's easy to grant entitlements and very hard to remove them.
As for the suburbs my understanding is that generally they tend to be more right wing than the cities - can someone comment if that is true?
Liberty4all
Banned
They don't need childcare as the mother works at the school the kids attend. So straight cash works out better for them. I suspect that suburbia has less childcare issues than urban centers ... Better support networks (grandparents taking care of kids from the in laws suite for example).
Wait, the childcare benefit is taxable, isn't it? So wouldn't he be getting much less than $800 a month after all the taxes are said and done?
Yup. Bamelin's brother is getting way less per month than he thinks since he isn't accounting for the end of year clawback.
Nah, I'm mainly concerned with the future of this country.
Harper wants us to be "America Jr.", and that doesn't sit well with me.
Liberty4all
Banned
It was just a casual conversation. No idea if before or after taxes. He's got 3 kids though. The only reason I brought it up was to point out some of the reasons middle class suburbanites with kids might be inclined to vote PC. Cash direct deposited every month is a very big incentive ... If one doesn't need daycare (which in my experience many suburbanites do not thanks to strong family support networks -- anecdotal though), that's money every month to supplement mortgage payments, groceries, kids swimming lessons, hockey lessons, etc .... It empowers the parents to decide where the money should go rather than the government (speaking hypothetically of cheap government funded daycare as an alternative to straight cash for example).
Again my stake in the child credit arguments is non existent I have no kids. I'm more worried about losing that TSFA increase.
Middle is subjective - but Macleans proposes this:
Better get my top hat and monocle, apparently I'm highest class.
All of this is selfish talk again.
"I want that extra amount off my taxes because I don't need cheap daycare and rather have my extra couple bucks and let my fellow Canadians and human beings suffer because of"
"I want higher TFSA's even though the majority of Canadians can't use it and it costs other social services that can be used for those that need it"
I've personally been in the highest tax bracket most of this decade, and I would benefit personally more from conservative tax breaks, but it's not the right thing to do.
Err, I don't think they're proposing anything. This is based on statscan data, so unless you have good reason to believe there's something wrong there they should be correct. Note that the median income (the income the very middle earner earns, with 50% earning more and 50% earning less) for individuals with no kids in Canada is readily available directly from Statscan and it's only $22k. I'd frankly be shocked, given that, if the 20th percentile was much higher than $55k. You can drill down some data for yourself if you want here.
Mind you, individual earners with no kids almost certainly skew younger. Individuals with kids ring in about $40k at the median. I assume the numbers for "Unattached individual" in that table are actually a merge of the single-no-kids and single-with-kids numbers, hence why it's a little higher.
And yes, it's very likely you occupy a higher income bracket than you think you do. It's a pretty common failure of perception.
Liberty4all
Banned
Selfish lol?
I know in my brothers case, that extra money each month allowed them to eat properly while his spouse was on mat leave and their earnings were down. They certainly were not high rolling with it. It is an erroneous assumption (imho) to assume the middle class doesn't need help too and is being "selfish" but nice spin.
Regarding TSFA's assuming that the premise "cannot save 10k a year" is true, TSFA room added each year is culmulative. Profit on a home sale, the proceeds of an inheritance ... It is not impossible to "catch up". TSFA's help the middle class first and foremost to create wealth. TSFA's were created to help the middle class save for retirement in a tax sheltered vehicle much more efficient than RRSPS which are taxed upon retirement. Middle class families that invest first into a TSFA (before the RRSP) is creating a pot of investment money from after tax dollars the government cannot touch. Which was the purpose when Flaherty created it. I'd prefer to be dependent on my savings than hoping CPP and OAS save my standard of living in my old age (it won't) and TSFA's is the best vehicle for a middle class earner to do that ... Putting in what you can yearly and maxing contribution room with windfalls.
I do however, get the point that TSFA's reduce taxable money from the economy ... Money that could be used for other social services. I also get the point of contention of rich families capping their max contributions for themselves, their kids, their grandkids etc ...
Yeah for sure. Your brother should put his info through that Liberal calculator and see what he comes up with, and do some of the math. Everything I've read suggests that for your brothers' case the Liberal plan would yield dramatically more benefits for him.
Liberty4all
Banned
I'll send him the calculator. Thanks!
A major goal of the $10k TFSA limit is to dramatically reduce government revenue and constrict ability of future governments to implement new programs.
The Conservatives are ideologically opposed to a government that funds services and programs. Government spending must be limited so that quality services and programs are impossible and must be shut down. The end goal is a tiny government that does almost nothing where everyone fends for themselves and pays for everything themselves.
When Joe Oliver was asked how future governments were going to deal with the massive revenue shortfalls caused by the program, he said that that was up to Stephen Harper's granddaughter to solve. They don't give a shit.
The Conservatives are ideologically opposed to a government that funds services and programs. Government spending must be limited so that quality services and programs are impossible and must be shut down. The end goal is a tiny government that does almost nothing where everyone fends for themselves and pays for everything themselves.
When Joe Oliver was asked how future governments were going to deal with the massive revenue shortfalls caused by the program, he said that that was up to Stephen Harper's granddaughter to solve. They don't give a shit.
So we can choose a conservative tax plan that benefits families that don't normally need assistance but allows them to save up for rainy days.
Or we can choose the plan that helps a single mother barely able to feed herself because her daycare costs are too much (i.e. every day is a rainy day).
Tell me which one is selfish.
A great nation needs to look out for it's 'weakest' members before anything else.
NetMapel, my dear....no. Just no.
Enough people have responded about the military side of things that I don't need to rehash that.
But have you seen me in this thread extolling the virtues of the Conservative government from a self-interested perspective? Have you seen me going on about how kickass things have been for the RCMP under Harper the last few years? No, you have not.
Quoth me from back in the thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=175069101&postcount=1261
"The Conservatives have gutted Federal Policing in this country to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in the past four years"
When the Commissioner went before a Parliamentary committee a couple months after the Ottawa attack, he was asked, more or less, about the resources he was given. His answer was very diplomatic, of course, but amounted to "Do I have enough resources for terrorism investigations? Yes. But I've had to practically put a halt to all other federal investigations to do it. We don't have enough people to walk and chew bubblegum at the same time."
All right, I realize we're all not fans of C-51 here, but I don't see how a law permitting increased information sharing among federal departments, and giving CSIS some warrant-backed disruption powers is a money-spender, people.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked